Ulan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm
Well, here you show your sleight of hand again. The book wasn't intact when Tischendorf saw it in 1844. He got shown 129 leaves and took 43 with him.
This is a story that Tischendorf created in 1859. He needed political cover so he created the fanciful "saved from fire, I had permission" story. For which there is not a shred of evidence.
And even though many laugh at the story, (parchment does not burn well, the sheets are in wonderful condition) there are still many dupes today. All this was built on an absurd idea that Tischendorf walked in on a special day of destruction after 1,500 years and saved them from fire.
Why in the world would you believe these tissues of lies? How much of a dupe are you?
Did you know that his supposedly random 43 leaves was actually five quires (3+2), every single leaf? And then a contiguous part of a sixth, a special part with the Esther colophon.
Ulan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm One year later, Uspenskij saw 347 leaves
And who gave you this number? If you copy errors, as here, you should give the source.
Uspensky did not indicate that Hermas was incomplete, adding more leaves. And his account sounds like a Codex, not loose leaves.
In fact, a weird theory, with no evidence, arose among the authenticists that the Monastery had done a quick rebinding in 1844. In order to account for the Uspensky account.
Ulan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm and was allowed to take three fragments that had already at that point been used for bindings in other books
There is not one scintilla of evidence that either Tischendorf or Uspensky was "allowed" to take anything in the 1840s. If you are going to spout nonsense, please .. give your source. (And if you use the Russian site as your source, try to avoid being in collusion
).
Please read Natalie Tchernetska's "Constantine Tischendorf and his Greek Manuscripts". Theft was normative. Tischendorf even stole a leaf of an Archimedes papyrus. Since the only evidence for what you wrote is accepting the Tischendorf brazen fabrications of 1859, you have proved nothing.
In fact, when Tischendorf wrote to his brother Julius in 1844, he simply said that the leaves from Sinai:
The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as reported in the personal letters of Konstantin Tischendorf
https://www.academia.edu/1123038/The_Di ... ischendorf
He has come into possession of [=ich bin in den Besitzgelangt von] 43 parchment folia of the Greek Old Testament which are some of thevery oldest preserved in Europe
Simple thief's talk.
Ulan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm This proves....
Nothing about events up to 1845, since you have all the facts wrong.
Ulan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm Who knows, it may have been intact when Donati saw it in 1761,
Please, don't embarrass yourself further. Read the Donati description.
Ulan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm Also, if Tischendorf had stolen those 43 leaves, why did the monks allow him to visit again in 1853, and even gave him another fragment that had been used as a bookmarker? ,
.. where do you have documentation that the monks gave him anything at all? Where is there a scintilla of evidence that they knew of the 43 leaves? Why do you repeat obvious fabrications?
The monks did not know about the 43 leaves. Tischendorf did not tell them of the missing quires. 40 of the leaves were intact quires. Tischendorf did NOT say where the Codex Friderico-Augustantus came from when he published in in 1846. Even after 1859, for awhile, Tischendorf was cagey about the connection of the Leipzig and St. Petersburg sections.
Ulan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pmRight, the "stealing" hypothesis fails a basic logic test. He visited the monastery a third time in 1859 (still nobody had objections against letting the "thief" into the library a third time), ,
Who said? There was a letter to try to keep him out (that may be 1844). He had accomplices inside, and opponents.
When Tischendorf came in 1859, the 1844 theft was NOT known, and he came with lots of Russian power, officialdom, $ and knew how to spread $ and liquor. That is how he came in for the last theft. Also he was under the patronage of the Tsar Alexander II, so the Monastery had to give him respect.
Ulan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pmconvinced the monastery to have 347 leaves transferred to Cairo (they obviously gave them voluntarily to the "thief"), worked some time on it ,
One report from an English esquire in the time, William Leonard Gage, in Sinai, was very different. An interesting study.
However, the most important point is simple, Tischendorf never let it out that the published in 1846 Leipzig pages were from that manuscript. The theft was well hidden. Obviously, no permission had been granted, so the key point was to avoid the connection of 1846 Leipzig heist with that of the 1859 heist. Hidden as long as possible.
Returning to 1859, below, Germanos simply says " Tischendorf, as soon as he put his hands on the book" Germanos was the informant for Cyril the Archbishop-Elect of Sinai, written in Oct 16/28. This is from the Sevcenko paper:
=================
"Contrary to our recommendations and to his own promises, Tischendorf, as soon as he put his hands on the book, hastened to spread the news throughout the whole of Cairo, either out of vanity or for some other reason. We also learned that he had beforehand published an article on this subject in an English daily. Since by now people here have no other subject of conversation than the affairs of Sinai, a great outcry arose against the Sinaites for having alienated this manuscript, since Tischendorf announced not that he had borrowed it, but rather that he had taken it for the definite purpose of offering it to the Emperor. Therefore people here are of the opinion that this offering has been arranged by Your Eminence In order that you might acquire the protection of the Russian Embassy there. ... We have been and still are denying all along that the manuscript had been given away, saying that we have sent it back to the monastery...."
The original note was in the German magazine, note English.
=================
Ulan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pmand then signed a receipt to have these transferred to Moscow. The receipt contained a clause that the manuscript would be returned on request. In 1862 the facsimile was ready and brought to the tsar's attention. Then diplomatic negotiations started, and the manuscript stayed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for that time. In 1869, the final contract of donation was signed by all parties, including the monastery itself. The main reason for the delay was that the monastery was embroiled in some struggle over the leadership, but in the end, the monks got the leader they wanted, and everything was peachy.
Most of this is irrelevant. Tischendorf was working with "possession is 99%" and simply trying to force some sort of accommodation. You might want to read Sevcenko.
Ulan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pmYour version of the story doesn't make a lick of sense. It fails basic checks.
You say this because of great ignorance on your part, and ignoring the actual history. First, get your facts straight, and then try to offer constructive criticism. Learn historical forensics.
Steven